| Comment: 
Democracy is utterly dependant upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.
There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.
Although all public relations professionals are bound by a duty to not knowingly mislead the public, some have executed comprehensive campaigns of misinformation on behalf of industry clients on issues ranging from tobacco and asbestos to seat belts.
Lately, these fringe players have turned their efforts to creating confusion about climate change. This PR campaign could not be accomplished without the compliance of media as well as the assent and participation of leaders in government and business.
Like what you read here? Get our top five stories in your inbox every week. » here's a preview
Enter your email and subscribe now!
| Desmogblog monthly book give-away |
 |
| Enter now to win this month’s book Anthony Barnosky's Heatstroke: Nature in an age of global warming |
The good news is that solutions to global warming exist, check out Ross Gelbspan’s Green Sheet and his vision for a pathway to climate peace. Or, check out the latest below:
2025? wtf are they thinking?
As you are likely aware, Sir Nicholas Stern was making the rounds this week declaring that we have underestimated the threat. The same Stern who, last January, was observing that on current trajectories... emissions of greenhouse gases from China over the next 25 years will equal the total emissions from the U.S. and Europe over the last century....
The magnitude of that potential increase in atmospheric CO2 is unnerving enough. Now, we have the USA, instead of providing leadership that could encourage China/India/et al. to follow suit, charting a course to actually GROW their emissions to 2025. From a starting point today of ~ 385ppm CO2, these outcomes would be committing the planet to concentrations well in excess of 450ppm within short decades.
Bush's nonsense continues to treat the issue as a "flow" problem, not a "stock" problem. When we say we need to get "emissions" down by 50%, 80%, 90% by 2050 or whatever, THE PATH we take to get there is actually MORE important than the final number. E.g. if we grow our global emissions to 2045 and then, improbably, abruptly cut them by 95% by 2050, it would be too late. We would have accumulated so much that many future generations would pay the price irregardless of whatever draconian cuts they accomplished subsequently (unless they were able to somehow draw down and permanently remove ambient CO2).
Good on the Germans for calling them out on this. Like Kevin Conrad from Papua New Guinea, at Bali last December - "We ask for your leadership, we seek your leadership ... if you can't give us what we want, please get out of the way." - and the US forced to back down on a world stage... It would be "nice" to have the US onboard, but at this point they have lost all credibility on the file (except at 24 Sussex!) and the Copenhagen process is clearly the main driver for agreement, and that bus can pick up Hilary, Obama or John as hitch-hikers early next year. Thank god it's buh-bye Bush, Cheney, Connaughton and crew in roughly 200 days.